Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Messerli law firm obtained a default judgment for its client, Capital One against Scheffler, a former debt collector. Having learned of Scheffler’s reputation as “the most litigious debtor” in Minnesota, Messerli instructed its employees not to contact Scheffler. Scheffler claims he nonetheless sent a cease-and-desist letter to Messerli, which says it received no letter. Messerli attempted to enforce the judgment by serving Scheffler with a garnishment summons. Scheffler returned an exemption Form, claiming that all of the money the bank had frozen was protected, but giving no reason why it was protected. He asserted that the source of the money was “[his] butt,” that he was entitled to death benefits, and “I told you that you were wasting your time.” Scheffler’s attorney sent a letter asking Messerli to honor the claimed cease-and-desist request and asserting that Scheffler was “judgment proof.” Scheffler, acting pro se, sued Messerli under the Fair Debt Collection Practices and Fair Credit Reporting Acts and state laws. The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal. Even if there were a cease letter, Messerli’s communications did not violate it. A creditor may communicate with a debtor after receiving a cease letter “to notify the consumer that the debt collector or creditor may invoke specified remedies,” 15 U.S.C. 1692c(c)(2), which is what the garnishment letter was. Messerli was also permitted to request Scheffler’s credit report, 15 U.S.C. 1681b(a)(3). View "Scheffler v. Messerli & Kramer P.A." on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Code provides preferential treatment to domestic support obligations. Young filed for bankruptcy shortly after he and his wife, Stephens, divorced. The divorce decree required Young to pay alimony. Young did not pay. Stephens filed contempt proceedings in state court and Young was jailed. Young responded by filing an adversary proceeding against Stephens in the bankruptcy court, alleging a violation of the stay. In the bankruptcy, including the adversary proceeding, attorney Cruz represented Young. She repeatedly mischaracterized past-due post-petition alimony obligations as past-due prepetition obligations and falsely asserted Young was current on his alimony payments, representing that Young would "continue" to make alimony payments. In reliance on these representations, the bankruptcy court confirmed a plan. After discovering Cruz's false statements, the court entered a show-cause order and concluded that Cruz had no basis in law or fact for her assertions. Citing Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011, the court imposed, and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and Eighth Circuit affirmed, sanctions; suspending Cruz from practice in the Arkansas bankruptcy courts for six months, fining her $1,000, and directing her to attend CLE. Rule 9011 required Cruz to "make a reasonable inquiry into whether . . . a factual and legal basis" supported her assertions. View "In re: Cruz" on Justia Law

Rosemann hired attorney Sigillito after Sigillito falsely informed Rosemann that he was an expert in international investments. In 2007, Rosemann received a $15.6 million buyout from the sale of his family’s company. Sigillito instructed Rosemann to loan $5 million of the buyout to Metis, a Turkish contractor. When Rosemann resisted, Sigillito told him “the loan was guaranteed by [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] contracts and that Sigillito would structure the deal to protect Rosemann and defer taxes.” Rosemann transferred $15.6 million to Sigillito, who wrote a $5 million check to Metis. For that service, Sigillito charged Rosemann $100,000. Sigillito took some money for his own use and loaned $10.8 million to another party in England. Approximately $2.75 million was repaid. In 2009, Metis defaulted and filed for bankruptcy protection in Turkey. Sigillito filed suit against Metis but the suit eventually was dismissed. The loan remains in default. In 2012, Sigillito was convicted of nine counts of wire fraud, four counts of mail fraud, six counts of money laundering, and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud. He was sentenced to 480 months’ imprisonment. Rosemann sued for legal malpractice. The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal because Rosemann failed to name an expert who would testify about the appropriate standard of care. View "Rosemann v. Sigillito" on Justia Law

Convent filed suit in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, seeking to appeal a resolution that the North Little Rock City Council passed declaring Convent's property a nuisance and condemning the property. In the same complaint, Convent asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Ark. Code 16-123-101, and a common law claim of trespass. The defendants removed the case to federal district court based on the federal claims and then moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court did not grant the motion, but found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Convent's claims based on Convent's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies; the court remanded the case to state court. Convent sought costs, fees, and expenses incurred due to “improper removal." The district court rejected the motion. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for removal of this action to federal court. View "Convent Corp. v. City of North Little Rock" on Justia Law

Defendant and others were charged with conspiring to distribute and conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 846, 841(a). He originally was appointed counsel, but later retained new counsel. Unsatisfied, defendant retained a third attorney, Rozan. Represented by Rozan, defendant pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment. The Eighth Circuit upheld the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. Defendant then filed a pro se motion to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. 2255, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial and appellate levels. Defendant argued that Rozan did not disclose that in 2004 and 2005, Rozan was privately reprimanded by the State Bar of Texas; in 2007, he was publicly reprimanded; and in 2009, while representing defendant on appeal, he was suspended from practice in Texas for five years, effective January 1, 2010. The Texas Supreme Court ordered Rozan to provide written notice of his suspension to every client and to every court officer in every court in which Rozan practiced. The Eighth Circuit affirmed denial of relief. It was defendant’s responsibility to investigate the disciplinary past of his attorney; the required notification occurred after defendant’s sentencing, and defendant did not show how he was prejudiced by Rozan’s silence. View "Ghost Bear v. United States" on Justia Law

Stephens, an attorney, is controlling principal of Southwest Medical, the Debtor, and has an interest in Southeast, the debtor in a separate bankruptcy. The Chapter 7 Trustee filed an adversary proceeding against Southeast and Stephens based on assets that were transferred post-petition by the Debtor to Southeast, and sought imposition of a constructive trust. By joint stipulation, Stephens was dismissed from the Adversary Proceeding. In 2013, following a trial, the Bankruptcy Court denied Stephens’ Motion to Intervene in the Adversary Proceeding; entered an order that allowed the Trustee an unsecured claim against Southeast ($1,190,000); and denied a constructive trust against Southeast’s assets. While Stephens’ appeal was pending, and on the last day of the one-year limitation period under FRCP 60(b), Stephens moved for Relief from Judgment or Order, alleging that the Trustee’s attorney had colluded with Southeast’s attorneys, amounting to a “fraud on the court.” The court denied Stephens’ Rule 60 Motion because, he was not a party in the Adversary Proceeding; held that Stephens’ allegations of fraud on the court violated Rule 9011(b)(2) and (b)(3); and ordered Stephens to pay $19,188.42 in attorney fees plus $1,659.10 as a sanction under Rule 9011(c)(2). The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Williams v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Howard allegedly rear-ended Gumby's vehicle, Gumby sued Howard and his employer, UPS. Contending that Gumby’s health might have contributed to the accident, UPS requested information including medical records and the identity of anyone with knowledge concerning this defense. Gumby provided the names of one physician and one hospital from which he had received pre-accident care. Gumby died a year later. Comstock, Gumby’s daughter and estate administrator, was substituted as plaintiff. A year after discovery began, Comstock produced documents revealing more medical providers, but did not produce all requested information. The court ordered Comstock to complete production by September 28. She failed to do so. In December 2012, Comstock provided UPS with over 3,000 pages of documents. Some were duplicates, but new documents showed that Gumby had vision problems; suffered dizziness, paranoia, and hallucinations while driving; had been instructed not to drive at night; and had been hospitalized hours before the accident. Comstock had called law enforcement that night, worried because Gumby, had left Pennsylvania to drive to Arkansas. UPS had already deposed Gumby and family members. The district court noted further misconduct concerning expert test results. The court found “extreme prejudice” and sanctioned Comstock under FRCP37(b)(2) by dismissal. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Comstock v. UPS Ground Freight, Inc." on Justia Law

Noel Bisges represented debtor in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. United States Trustee Nancy Gargula moved to reopen the case after it was closed because she learned that debtor possibly failed to disclose in her bankruptcy petition that she owns horses. On appeal, Bisges challenged the district court's decision upholding the bankruptcy court's denial of Bisges's motion to dismiss and the imposition of sanctions against him. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion where there is insufficient evidence of bad faith by Gargula. Further, the court saw no clear error in the bankruptcy judge's findings that Bisges advised debtor to omit from her bankruptcy petition a payment to her mother and Bisges violated 11 U.S.C. 707(b)(4)(C) by attaching to the bankruptcy petition schedules that significantly differed from the schedules that debtor had signed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.View "Bisges v. Gargula" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants alleging that defendants breached a contract for legal services, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The district court granted defendants' motion to transfer the legal malpractice suit to the District of Nebraska. The district court subsequently denied plaintiffs' motion to retransfer and concluded that plaintiffs' claims were time-barred. Plaintiffs appealed. The court concluded that, because the malpractice occurred exclusively in the District of Nebraska, there was no error in concluding that the Southern District of Iowa was an improper venue. Further, this issue is governed by the Nebraska, the transferee forum, choice-of-law principles. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment applying Nebraska's legal malpractice statute of limitations in ruling that plaintiffs' claim was time-barred.View "Steen v. Murray" on Justia Law

G&K filed suit against Bill's for breach of contract and sought liquidated damages. Bill's counterclaimed, asserting common-law clams and a violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code 4-88-113. A jury found in favor of G&K on the common-law counterclaims but returned a verdict for Bill's on its deceptive trade practices counterclaim, awarding Bill's damages. The district court subsequently awarded G&K attorney's fees and denied Bill's motion for attorney's fees. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $82,766.50 in attorney's fees to G&K where the district court expressly considered G&K's degree of success and reduced its requested award based on time devoted to unsuccessful causes of action; the district court did not abuse its discretion by implicitly finding that the hourly rates claimed by G&K's Little Rock-based attorneys were reasonable; the documentation was sufficient to support the district court's conclusion where the record includes invoices that detail the amount of time spent on this litigation and the activities on which that time was spent; although the district court did not expressly mention all eight of the Chrisco factors, the district court did address several and provided enough explanation for the court to conclude that there was no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court rejected Bill's challenge to the award of attorney's fees to G&K. In light of comments from the Arkansas courts and the absence of mandatory language in section 4-88-113(f), the court agreed with the district court that Bill's was not automatically entitled to an award of fees when it prevailed on a claim under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. However, the court found little explanation for the district court's ruling and remanded for the district court to consider whether Bill's should be awarded a reasonable attorney's fee under section 4-88-113(f). The Act establishes an independent basis for awarding fees and does not restrict awards to a party that prevails in whatever larger litigation involves a claim under the Act. A party who prevails on a cause of action to recover actual damages under the Act is eligible for an award of attorney's fees, even when another party is the prevailing party in the overall action for purposes of Ark. Code Sec. 16-22-308.View "G&K Services Co., Inc. v. Bill's Super Foods, Inc." on Justia Law